T i m  wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:16:44 +0000, usenet@alienrat.co.uk (Woody)
> wrote:
> 
> >T i m  wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:54:12 GMT, news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark
> > > Bestley)
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >T i m  wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> Is it free?
> >> >> 
> >> >
> >> >Yes and with source code at
> > > > <http://wakaba.c3.cx/s/apps/unarchiver.html>
> >> 
> >> Cheers <downloaded>, although OOI I'm not sure how / why I'd (one
> >> would) want the source code? I mean, I think it's to do with
> > > allowing
> >> you to compile something yourself but I don't know why you would
> > > want
> >> or need to do such if it was already done for you?
> >
> >I don't know - its as odd an idea as selling parts for cars in case
> > you
> >wanted to change anything, even though it is already built!
> 
> It was a serious question.

Although obviously wrapped around a joke, it was a serious answer. 
 
> Like what sort of things and who would do this (I couldn't for example
> as I'm not a programmer or whatever you would have to be to do said)?


If you bought a car and the only place it could be touched was at the
main garage, and that garage dissapeared (so,yes a rover!), everything
would be fine until it broke. Then it would be useless to you. 

If you have a piece of software, obviously it won't get worse in time,
but the operating system changes and it makes things not work. If you
have the code, you can fix this.
Also, if some other format changes, you can fix that too, even if the
original programmer is not interested in doing it.

It may seem hyperthetical but I actually have this problem at work. One
of my main tools is visual xslt. There is nothinng to touch it for what
I do. However, it only works under visual studio 2003, which is not
supprted by Microsoft under vista or later. I have spoken to the company
who made it and while they were helpful, it isn't worth their rime to
update it, as Microsoft made something similar on vs2005, and it is good
enough for most people, so their Market collapsed. 
This means as I am using later windows, I have to run a vm to run just
this program. If I had the source code, I could fix that.



-- 
Woody

On 3 Nov 2009 10:17:17 GMT, Woody  wrote:


>> >I don't know - its as odd an idea as selling parts for cars in case
>> > you
>> >wanted to change anything, even though it is already built!
>> 
>> It was a serious question.
>
>Although obviously wrapped around a joke, it was a serious answer. 

Ah.
> 
>> Like what sort of things and who would do this (I couldn't for example
>> as I'm not a programmer or whatever you would have to be to do said)?
>
>
>If you bought a car and the only place it could be touched was at the
>main garage, and that garage dissapeared (so,yes a rover!), everything
>would be fine until it broke. Then it would be useless to you. 

Riiight ....
>
>If you have a piece of software, obviously it won't get worse in time,
>but the operating system changes and it makes things not work. If you
>have the code, you can fix this.

And when you say 'you' who are you actually talking about typically?

>Also, if some other format changes, you can fix that too, even if the
>original programmer is not interested in doing it.

Ok. So it's the schematics if you will.
>
>It may seem hyperthetical 

No, not at all, I can see it being a very real issue, however unless I
have missed something not something I (for instance) could take
advantage of (or not easily)?

>but I actually have this problem at work. One
>of my main tools is visual xslt. There is nothinng to touch it for what
>I do. However, it only works under visual studio 2003, which is not
>supprted by Microsoft under vista or later. I have spoken to the company
>who made it and while they were helpful, it isn't worth their rime to
>update it, as Microsoft made something similar on vs2005, and it is good
>enough for most people, so their Market collapsed. 

Ok.

>This means as I am using later windows, I have to run a vm to run just
>this program. If I had the source code, I could fix that.

Understood. So, if you are a 'programmer' (particularly if you know
the language?) it (the source code) gives you the chance to recompile
(is that the right term?) said code to be suitable with any OS (ie any
OS of the same flavour, ie, Windows but not Linux?) and or make
modifications to it to make it do other things?

If that's a 'yes' to the latter, could you have not potentially
written the program in the first place (I know you may not have been
bothered to, but could you (or 'a programmer') in principal)?

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:56:05 +0000, nemo@erewhon.invalid (John Hill)
wrote:

>T i m  wrote:
>
>> On 3 Nov 2009 10:17:17 GMT, Woody  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Understood. So, if you are a 'programmer' (particularly if you know
>> the language?) it (the source code) gives you the chance to recompile
>> (is that the right term?) said code to be suitable with any OS (ie any
>> OS of the same flavour, ie, Windows but not Linux?) and or make
>> modifications to it to make it do other things?
>> 
>> If that's a 'yes' to the latter, could you have not potentially
>> written the program in the first place (I know you may not have been
>> bothered to, but could you (or 'a programmer') in principal)?
>> 
>> Cheers, T i m
>
>I've written the odd piece of software here and there, for the Mac (but
>System 7 and earlier only!) and other platforms (even earlier).

I've done the odd batch file and quite a few DOS CONFIG.SYS and
AUTOEXEC.BATs in my time but I'm not sure if that's programming in the
full sense of the word or more like scripting?
>
>In those days you had to:
>a) Know the language you are writing in (I never got further than
>Pascal),
>b) Know the machine you were writing for (such as by having a copy of
>Inside Macintosh),
>c) Have a compiler for that language on that machine.

Tools of the trade I guess.
>
>But even then (and I'm talking over ten years ago) things like Object
>Orientated Programming were creeping in. I expect that it's even more
>advanced now.

And that's the thing isn't it. Just when you have something under yer
belt they bring out something else. Mind you, some folk like that
(new) as in fact I did when I was racing RC model cars and boats.  I
always seemed to do well on a new circuit then slowly the others would
become accustomed to it as well (is that spatial awareness)?
>
>Do recent developments make it easier or harder to write software that
>is useable across a number of platforms?

I would imagine there are programs that (nearly) write programs these
days, I know there is similar for the games side of it and not just
creating extra maps and levels etc. [1]

> I can see that it might be
>possible to write software that would run under OSX and UNIX, but what
>about the user interface? Unless it was very basic, this was always the
>b****r.

I think to make that 'right' you need to be very particular and also
quite artistic (layout, drop shadows, 3d buttons etc).

I've never been good at parallel / multi - tasking so probably why I
never had much of an interest past copying a BASIC game out of a mag
and into my Spectrum. I could *sometimes* fault find a BASIC prog,
especially if it was documented but once it got past yer basic loops
and GOTOs I lost interest. 

Cheers, T i m

[1] I once made a Doom map, duplicating our office at work, complete
with lifts and rooms etc. Whilst it was a fairly accurate
representation of the building it only 'worked' as a level with a
specific number of players. When I was playing Pariah (like Halo on
the XBox) recently there were a few guys out there making the most
amazingly large and complex / clever / pretty maps and I even helped a
couple beta test them. It was really good helping someone whilst
exploring a new world, even if sometimes they had to kill you as you
were stuck in an impossible_to_get_out_of hole etc. It also meant you
had a slight advantage when you played the map for real on the NET.
<weg>

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:38:23 +0000, usenet@alienrat.co.uk (Woody)
wrote:

>> 
>> And when you say 'you' who are you actually talking about typically?
>
>I mean a software developer

That's sorta what I was asking initially, not knowing if now days that
sort of thing was available to all (non 'programmers') because of
advances in technology.  Like how it is with circuit / PCB design, 3D
design apps /  printers. Also with some RPG games platforms (PC
anyway) where the user has access to the map development tools and
their use could nearly be considered intuitive.
>
>> >Also, if some other format changes, you can fix that too, even if the
>> >original programmer is not interested in doing it.
>> 
>> Ok. So it's the schematics if you will.
>
>Its not all of the schematics, or at least not always but it is half way
>between the mechanics of what is there, and what the designer intended.

So would it be closer if the code was fully commented for example?
>
>> >It may seem hyperthetical 
>> 
>> No, not at all, I can see it being a very real issue, however unless I
>> have missed something not something I (for instance) could take
>> advantage of (or not easily)?
>
>No, I guess not. But it is generally handy that someone could.

Indeed and something I'd like to be able do but I don't think I have
the aptitude nor real desire. Maybe if I happened to be with someone
who knew how to do such things and I could get good starter advice /
rules etc I might be more keen, I just don't learn very well from
books etc. [1]
>
>
>> If that's a 'yes' to the latter, could you have not potentially
>> written the program in the first place (I know you may not have been
>> bothered to, but could you (or 'a programmer') in principal)?
>
>Potentially you could, in the same way as you could have designed and
>built the car from scratch in the first place. But in this case it is
>much more like if you can no longer get the original wheels for the car.
>It would be possible for you to design an entirely new car to use the
>wheels you can get, but if you have the plans you could just modify the
>car to use those wheels.

So patching and tweaking in most cases then?

Cheers, T i m



[1] The other day Daughter had some chainsaw carving 'guidance' from a
highly talented chap who is also very involved in the field at other
levels  (arranging comps etc). They first carved a bear between them
(he made a cut on one side then she mimicked it on the other) and when
that was finished they carved a bear each, him making his cut then her
hers. For folk like us (daughter and I) who learn by 'doing' it seemed
a very good process.

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 00:56:32 +0000,
real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:

>> >
>> >If you have a piece of software, obviously it won't get worse in time,
>> >but the operating system changes and it makes things not work. If you
>> >have the code, you can fix this.
>> 
>> And when you say 'you' who are you actually talking about typically?
>
>Someone who's a skilled programmer and clued up about the evolution of
>the OS in question.

Ah, so when Mark offered the link and mentioned the fact that the
source code was available was there any assumption that we all could
make use of such or that said mention is something someone who would
use / knows about might say in any case (that wasn't in any way a
comment against / about Mark of course, just trying to get a feel for
the whole thing). Like, what percentage of people here could make use
of 'source code' etc?
>
>> >Also, if some other format changes, you can fix that too, even if the
>> >original programmer is not interested in doing it.
>> 
>> Ok. So it's the schematics if you will.
>
>No, it's the thing itself.  The source code is the actual instructions
>to the computer on how to do the job that the software is meant to do.

Ok, I can see it that way also. I was looking at it as an electronics
engineer. The code is the cct but the source code is the schematics
for the cct, the means by witch you could understand then fix / modify
said cct (logically not physically of course). The code (like the cct)
will work without the source code being available (as with the
schematics).
>
>The source code needs processing before the computer can actually act on
>the instructions, since it's in the wrong language as written - that is,
>code gets written in a human-readable high-level language and then
>turned into computer-executable machine code by a compiler.

So, say you had an on-screen calculator 'program' / source code. Could
you compile that to work on any OS just by using a different compiler
or would the code itself have to be OS dependant?
>
>(unless the programmer's a masochist and really /wants/ to write in a
>low-level language; or maybe has to do so for reasons of efficiency)

I've seen instructions (would it have been?) entered on the toggle
switches of a PDP summat.  When run, 'Hi Tim' came up alternately on
a terminal and the line printer.[1] ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[1] This was done by a mate who when I first met him was a terminal or
user number that came up during some basic programming I was doing at
college on a remote terminal to a PDP-10  at Hatfield Poly. He had
'broken into' our computer from an ILEA terminal (by jamming his hear
is drum(?) and setting off a Hatfield poly one on punch tape instead
.. 'Hattypolyritty' or something). He had then logged in as a Sysop
and was roaming the system. My fist contact from him was "TTY32: Is
that you Dave?" (it turns our Dave was another regular evening user
... and a long time before Red Dwarf <g>). Not knowing what to do to
reply (Send TTYXX was it?) he told me that and a new cyber friendship
was formed. ;-)

Unsurprisingly he went on to run a computer suite in the City and was
doing fairly well for himself the last time we spoke.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:39:59 GMT, news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
wrote:


>> Ah, so when Mark offered the link and mentioned the fact that the
>> source code was available was there any assumption that we all could
>> make use of such or that said mention is something someone who would
>> use / knows about might say in any case (that wasn't in any way a
>> comment against / about Mark of course, just trying to get a feel for
>> the whole thing). Like, what percentage of people here could make use
>> of 'source code' etc?
>
>I really only wanted to say more than yes it was free. 

I thought as much but wasn't 100%. ;-)

>Also showing it
>has code makes it much clearer it is free.

I think I'd make the link. However it could also mean (to me) 'you can
have the d-i-y bit yerself but the finished bit you pay for' (as I
have no idea what difficulty would be involved in compiling it etc).
In your world this is all very basic stuff, for some of us it really
might as well be Greek. ;-)

> As the program works I have
>not downloaded the code myself however I do write code and fix things if
>needed.
>
Ok.
>
>> Ok, I can see it that way also. I was looking at it as an electronics
>> engineer. The code is the cct but the source code is the schematics
>> for the cct, the means by witch you could understand then fix / modify
>> said cct (logically not physically of course). The code (like the cct)
>> will work without the source code being available (as with the
>> schematics).
>
>Yes.

Interesting. My analogy works for you but not for Rowland (or works
enough to give me the benefit of the doubt). ;-)
>

>> So, say you had an on-screen calculator 'program' / source code. Could
>> you compile that to work on any OS just by using a different compiler
>> or would the code itself have to be OS dependant?
>
>Well depends.

And I guess that would sort the men etc. I love experiencing something
new (when I'm interested etc) and learning all the pitfalls and
gotchas. Not only for myself but in the hope that maybe one day I may
be able to help someone else.

> The code to write to the screen can be OS dependant.

Ok.

> The
>code doing the calculation could be the same.

Because (to some base level) 'maths is maths'? You could do basic
stuff on all the processors even if some had fancy bits that could
remove some of the repetition (RISK / CISC sort of thing)?

> A MacOSX with Cocoa GUI
>program won't run on Windows and a Windows .Net program with winforms
>GUI won't run on OSX (There are odd cases where this is true but not for
>interesting programs).

Ok.

>  However if you write using some GUI toolkit it
>will run on both, an example of this is Firefox.

Oh, so when I download a copy of Firefox it's the same basic
'package' for say Win / OSX (even though one is a .dmg and the other a
.zip say)? Is that different from 'Universal' stuff for Macs?

>Programs like Safari (I
>think) and Office have totally different GUI code on winws and OSX.

Ok and thanks for the feedback.

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:11:47 +0000,
real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:

>
>The difficulty is learning how to program, which includes learning a
>programming language, a software development environment (the program
>you use to write and compile your software)

And I guess it might also involve some maths, not one of my strong
points.
>
>> >> >Also, if some other format changes, you can fix that too, even if the
>> >> >original programmer is not interested in doing it.
>> >> 
>> >> Ok. So it's the schematics if you will.
>> >
>> >No, it's the thing itself.  The source code is the actual instructions
>> >to the computer on how to do the job that the software is meant to do.
>> 
>> Ok, I can see it that way also. I was looking at it as an electronics
>> engineer. The code is the cct but the source code is the schematics
>> for the cct, the means by witch you could understand then fix / modify
>> said cct (logically not physically of course). The code (like the cct)
>> will work without the source code being available (as with the
>> schematics).
>
>That analogy isn't valid.
>
>The source code is the program.  It's not like a circuit diagram, which
>is a different kind of thing to a real circuit - source code is computer
>code, the actual instructions that tell the computer how to do a job.

Would you normally 'use' the source code though, as the final product,
or is it simply a means to an end?
>
>It's just that source code is computer code which needs to be translated
>into a machine language before a real computer can actually execute it.

Ah. ;-)  So, like a schematic allows someone to actually build the
circuit, once done the schematic plays no further part, unless,
someone want's to modify or repair said circuit without having to work
it out themselves (reverse engineer)?
>
>SO when you fiddle with the source code, you're messing with the real
>thing directly.  It's all data - an electronic circuit diagram is data,
>while the actual circuit's the real thing.  In the case of software,
>there is no such distinction that I can see.  Both the source code and
>the compiled executable *say exactly the same thing* - just in different
>languages, one human-readable, one machine-readable.

Ok, I see where you are coming from but I was taking it down that next
step (you can't 'use' the source code etc).
>
>(except actually they're both machine readable and human readable, just
>that the source code is more convenient for us, and the executable code
>is more convenient for the machines)

Indeed. 001110110010110100101001 
>

>> So, say you had an on-screen calculator 'program' / source code. Could
>> you compile that to work on any OS just by using a different compiler
>> or would the code itself have to be OS dependant?
>
>Neither or both or non-applicable, depending.

Ok ta.
>
>Look, programs are written for all sorts of things.  Javascript is a
>programming language - any modern Web browser will execute that, for
>example (and without compiling IIRC; Javascript is interpreted, that is:
>turned into executable on the fly when the computer is given it).

I remember that distinction from college.
>
>Something like MacSoup is certain to be OS dependent, since it's the OS
>that does things like draw windows on screen.  The application
>programmer tells the OS what he wants in that line, and the OS goes away
>and does it.  That sort of thing varies from Mac to Windoze and so on.

Ok.
>
>> I've seen instructions (would it have been?) entered on the toggle
>> switches of a PDP summat.
>
>That's entering the binary digits directly, the slowest and most
>low-level form of programming.  I've not quite done that myself -
>entering hex directly, though, yes.

Ok. I wasn't sure if it was just loading a previously created program
(I didn't think it was as I turned up unannounced).
>
>> When run, 'Hi Tim' came up alternately on
>> a terminal and the line printer.[1] ;-)
>
>Ah - high powered clever stuff, then.

I was impressed (as I knew enough about 'computers' at the time to see
it wasn't easy).
>
>> 
>> [1] This was done by a mate who when I first met him was a terminal or
>> user number that came up during some basic programming I was doing at
>> college on a remote terminal to a PDP-10  at Hatfield Poly. He had
>> 'broken into' our computer from an ILEA terminal (by jamming his hear
>> is drum(?) and setting off a Hatfield poly one on punch tape instead
>> .. 'Hattypolyritty' or something). 
>
>Ye gods.  All those old terms - Hatfield Poly, ILEA...  I remember those
>days (my mother used to curse ILEA, but I can't recall why).

I am old. ;-(
>
>>He had then logged in as a Sysop
>> and was roaming the system. My fist contact from him was "TTY32: Is
>> that you Dave?" (it turns our Dave was another regular evening user
>> ... and a long time before Red Dwarf <g>).
>
>But after 2001, A Space Odyssey.

This was 1972? 
>
Cheers, T i m

On 2009-11-04, T i m  wrote:
>>
>>The source code is the program.  It's not like a circuit diagram, which
>>is a different kind of thing to a real circuit - source code is computer
>>code, the actual instructions that tell the computer how to do a job.
>
> Would you normally 'use' the source code though, as the final product,
> or is it simply a means to an end?

To put it another way: the source code is to a computer programme what a
recipe is to a meal.

Jim
-- 
http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk  http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK

My Oasis of Calm has dried up. However, my Garden of Angry is
flourishing quite nicely.

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:04:51 +0000, Jim  wrote:

>On 2009-11-04, T i m  wrote:
>>>
>>>The source code is the program.  It's not like a circuit diagram, which
>>>is a different kind of thing to a real circuit - source code is computer
>>>code, the actual instructions that tell the computer how to do a job.
>>
>> Would you normally 'use' the source code though, as the final product,
>> or is it simply a means to an end?
>
>To put it another way: the source code is to a computer programme what a
>recipe is to a meal.
>
Hmm (I cook but don't use recipes). ;-)

But yes, I think I had got the relationship.

So, it would basically go, concept > flow / logic diagram > code >
compile > finished app  (with various bug fixes / tweaks / testing /
skipped / added steps along the way etc)?

T i m

On 2009-11-04, T i m  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>The source code is the program.  It's not like a circuit diagram, which
>>>>is a different kind of thing to a real circuit - source code is computer
>>>>code, the actual instructions that tell the computer how to do a job.
>>>
>>> Would you normally 'use' the source code though, as the final product,
>>> or is it simply a means to an end?
>>
>>To put it another way: the source code is to a computer programme what a
>>recipe is to a meal.
>>
> Hmm (I cook but don't use recipes). ;-)
>
> But yes, I think I had got the relationship.
>
> So, it would basically go, concept > flow / logic diagram > code >
> compile > finished app  (with various bug fixes / tweaks / testing /
> skipped / added steps along the way etc)?

Quite a few will miss out the 'flow / logic diagram' steps, but essentially
that's it.

Jim
-- 
http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk  http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK

My Oasis of Calm has dried up. However, my Garden of Angry is
flourishing quite nicely.

In article <slrnhf3dsi.2ioe.jim@wotan.magrathea.local>,
 Jim  wrote:

> On 2009-11-04, T i m  wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>The source code is the program.  It's not like a circuit diagram, which
> >>>>is a different kind of thing to a real circuit - source code is computer
> >>>>code, the actual instructions that tell the computer how to do a job.
> >>>
> >>> Would you normally 'use' the source code though, as the final product,
> >>> or is it simply a means to an end?
> >>
> >>To put it another way: the source code is to a computer programme what a
> >>recipe is to a meal.
> >>
> > Hmm (I cook but don't use recipes). ;-)
> >
> > But yes, I think I had got the relationship.
> >
> > So, it would basically go, concept > flow / logic diagram > code >
> > compile > finished app  (with various bug fixes / tweaks / testing /
> > skipped / added steps along the way etc)?
> 
> Quite a few will miss out the 'flow / logic diagram' steps, but essentially
> that's it.

Yes. I haven't done a flow-chart for 40 years, but I certainly sit down 
and write out the logic flow in some cases.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

Jim  wrote:

> On 2009-11-04, Pd <peterd.news@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> > Jim  wrote:
> >
> >> > Where on the graph is, say, Donald Knuth, who does the right thing very
> >> > well, every time?
> >> 
> >> I think he's an exception.
> >
> > I hope he's been handled.
> 
> I think he handles himself.

That's quite exceptional. A self-handling exception handler.

-- 
Pd

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:

> > I think he should have said that all programmers have _aspects_ of those two
> > main types. Truly great coders tend to be extreme forms of just one or the
> > other.
> 
> Any evidence for that?  From what I've seen, the best ones are
> combinations of extreme forms of both - with other bits added.

'Evidence'? No, but it does match up quite well with programmers that
I've observed over the years.

Jim
-- 
"Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good
product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious
understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some
slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

Jim  wrote:

> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > I think he should have said that all programmers have _aspects_ of
> > > those two main types. Truly great coders tend to be extreme forms of
> > > just one or the other.
> > 
> > Any evidence for that?  From what I've seen, the best ones are
> > combinations of extreme forms of both - with other bits added.
> 
> 'Evidence'? No, but it does match up quite well with programmers that
> I've observed over the years.

It contradicts what I've seen in programmers over the years.

Maybe you're only seeing what you want to see?

Maybe you're modifying the memory of your observations to match your
prejudices?

It's what - oh, pretty much every human being ever has done, does do,
and probably will do in the future.  So I think you are doing it.

That's why I asked for evidence - anecdotal observation stuff is useful
for suggesting what to look at, but it's NBG for demonstrating anything
reliably.  I know my observations are only slightly less unreliable than
those of an average person.

(and that's not me being immodest - it's hard to have my background and
not be less unreliable at observation than average, mostly on account of
me being sure my observations are unreliable)

Rowland.

-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

On 2009-11-05, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> > > I think he should have said that all programmers have _aspects_ of
>> > > those two main types. Truly great coders tend to be extreme forms of
>> > > just one or the other.
>> > 
>> > Any evidence for that?  From what I've seen, the best ones are
>> > combinations of extreme forms of both - with other bits added.
>> 
>> 'Evidence'? No, but it does match up quite well with programmers that
>> I've observed over the years.
>
> It contradicts what I've seen in programmers over the years.
>
> Maybe you're only seeing what you want to see?

Nope. And I'm looking at a few of them _right now_. I'm a programmer. I work
with programmers. I can see the traits.

> Maybe you're modifying the memory of your observations to match your
> prejudices?

Nope. See above.

Besides - the original Bob Cringely quote was meant for a little light
reading, it wasn't supposed to be taken as a thesis on The Mentalities Of
Programmers.

Jim
-- 
http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk  http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK

My Oasis of Calm has dried up. However, my Garden of Angry is
flourishing quite nicely.

Jim  wrote:

> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > > I think he should have said that all programmers have _aspects_ of
> >> > > those two main types. Truly great coders tend to be extreme forms of
> >> > > just one or the other.
> >> > 
> >> > Any evidence for that?  From what I've seen, the best ones are
> >> > combinations of extreme forms of both - with other bits added.
> >> 
> >> 'Evidence'? No, but it does match up quite well with programmers that
> >> I've observed over the years.
> >
> > It contradicts what I've seen in programmers over the years.
> >
> > Maybe you're only seeing what you want to see?
> 
> Nope. And I'm looking at a few of them _right now_. I'm a programmer. I work
> with programmers. I can see the traits.

And any psychologist will tell you that your observations are worthless.

My observations are only slightly better - but all I'm doing really is
pointing out that any scheme which divides people psychologically using
a binary classification is nonsense.  That is because people do not
divide up like that - the model is flawed at heart, because it's based
on rationalization and supposition and arrangance rather than
measurement.

> > Maybe you're modifying the memory of your observations to match your
> > prejudices?
> 
> Nope. See above.

I did read the above.  So you're assuming by way of natural arrogance
that you're right and I can't have a valid point because you're an
arrogant shit who just knows he can't have made a mistake in making a
judgement that no-one can make with any reliability.

> Besides - the original Bob Cringely quote was meant for a little light
> reading, it wasn't supposed to be taken as a thesis on The Mentalities Of
> Programmers.

But that sort of thing is used as a template for the thinking of others,
such as you.  You *HAVE* taken it as a thesis on the mentalilties of
progammers - you're using that model, you now believe in that model as
an article of such deep-seated faith that you are blind to the fact that
your `observations' backing up this model are so unreliable as to be
almost worthless.

Rowland.

-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:

> you're an arrogant shit

Yeah Jim, ya big tosspot doody-head.

-- 
Pd

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:

> [1]  24 years old, so they've had time to do the first degree and then
> the PhD, which'd put 'em some rungs above you in cluefulness on the
> subject.

Well, no, it wouldn't, as they wouldn't have had a chance to go out into
the real world of development, outside a university.

If they went to work at 18 and worked up they would probably have more
to say on the subject

-- 
Woody

www.alienrat.com

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:

> > Besides - the original Bob Cringely quote was meant for a little light
> > reading, it wasn't supposed to be taken as a thesis on The Mentalities Of
> > Programmers.
> 
> But that sort of thing is used as a template for the thinking of others,
> such as you.  You *HAVE* taken it as a thesis on the mentalilties of
> progammers - you're using that model, you now believe in that model as
> an article of such deep-seated faith that you are blind to the fact that
> your `observations' backing up this model are so unreliable as to be
> almost worthless.

Oh, for Heaven's sake man, get some bloody perspective.

Jim
-- 
"Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good
product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious
understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some
slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:

> One must be a brain-dead wage-slave before you'll admit that he might
> have a point worth attending to?

No - but I'm betting that someone who actually does it, as opposed to
someone who once kinda-sorta did it and now just talks about it, may
_just_ have a better idea of such things.

Jim
-- 
"Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good
product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious
understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some
slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:

> But I'm beginning to understand why I dislike you so much - that sort of
> nasty mindless snobbery, and a tendency to just plain object to what I
> say for the sake of causing arguments.

Whereas I dislike you because you're incapable of having a civilised
discussion - you always turn it into an interrogation with you as the
self-proclaimed 'expert' in whatever-the-hell-is-being-discussed.

Jim
-- 
http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk  http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK
Please help save Bletchley Park - sign the petition for
Government funding at:     (open to UK residents and ex.pats)
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BletchleyPark/    Thank you.

Tim Streater  wrote:

> A 24 year old who's done a degree and a PhD won't have any particularly
> useful clues about programming. All they will have is proof that they
> are capable of getting some after some years.

Can't remember the exact quote, but on a computing professor's door
there was a sign along the lines of "If your code is 95% correct I'll
give you a distiction; your employer will fire you".

Jim
-- 
http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk  http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK
Please help save Bletchley Park - sign the petition for
Government funding at:     (open to UK residents and ex.pats)
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BletchleyPark/    Thank you.

Ben Shimmin  wrote:

> Jim :
> > On 2009-11-05, Rowland McDonnell:
> >> Well, I *AM* a programmer[1], and I say you're wrong.
> >
> > When you've earned your living from it for the last 20 years then I may
> > start to give you some credence.
> 
> Rowland's a programmer who doesn't know what `hard-coded' means.

<cough>  Really?  The Rowland who's writing this understands the concept
of `hard-coded'.  Who are you talking about?

btw, Rowland mostly programs in LaTeX these days.  Think about that a
little, eh?

>  That
> puts him in a fairly, er, elite category of programmers, I would say.

Rowland's someone who has lots of people spout a lot of nasty bullshit
about him, in order that others might think worse of him.

What's your excuse for this particular bit of dishonest shit-flinging,
Ben?

Wrong time of the month, or is it that your natural nastiness made you
think it was the right time to just hurl some shit to make the world a
worse place?

Rowland.

-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Jim  wrote:

> Oh, for Heaven's sake man, get some bloody perspective.

Jim, remember, Rowland doesn't have perspective. It's part of his mental
illness.
-- 
Peter

Pd <peterd.news@gmail.invalid> wrote:

> Turns out there's a MacOSX version of Prograph, or something so similar
> it might as well be. It's called Marten, by <http://andescotia.com/>

Some hideously long time ago, when I was doing some work for a programme
called 'Antenna' on GUIs, I was at a development company who showed me
something very much like that. All I can remember is that it was running
on what was for the time a large machine using multiple 68000s. I was
jolly impressed, and wondered why anybody would ever use any other
method. But at the time, in 1993 or 94, it wasn't commercially
available.

As it was, we made the programme with a chap who designed one of the OSs
that was available for the IBM 6000, which was brand new. We talked
about desktop metaphors and virtual environments. He demoed some ideas
they had, about representing LANs using depth and perspective. It was
jolly interesting, but I've lost the VHS of the transmitted programme. I
do know that we filmed some refugees from Autodesk, in Sausalito, who'd
built a more or less portable setup with 'eyephones' based on two Amiga
boards. The graphics were jolly low-rez, but stereo and remarkably
immersive, and the idea of using such a thing as a user interface seemed
quite doable. William Gibson had just published 'Neuromancer' and I
wanted to get him on board, but he was working on the script of 'Aliens'
and couldn't spare the time, although we had some longish telephone
conversations about human/computer interaction which were
extraordinarily interesting.
-- 
Peter

Peter Ceresole  wrote:

> Pd <peterd.news@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Turns out there's a MacOSX version of Prograph, or something so similar
> > it might as well be. It's called Marten, by <http://andescotia.com/>
> 
> Some hideously long time ago, when I was doing some work for a programme
> called 'Antenna' on GUIs, I was at a development company who showed me
> something very much like that. All I can remember is that it was running
> on what was for the time a large machine using multiple 68000s. I was
> jolly impressed, and wondered why anybody would ever use any other
> method. But at the time, in 1993 or 94, it wasn't commercially
> available.

Prograph was first released into the wild in 1989, and already had a
compiler by the time we brought it to the UK in 1993. I wrote a bunch of
stuff with it, including a graphical SQL database browser to access our
Butler SQL server (or any other back end SQL server) as a demo and base
for further customisation.

I think it could have done really well if a sufficiently large or
effective marketing campaign had been implemented.

-- 
Pd

Tim Streater  wrote:

[snip]

> A 24 year old who's done a degree and a PhD won't have any particularly
> useful clues about programming. All they will have is proof that they
> are capable of getting some after some years.

Ah yes, the snotty superiority of the elderly, sneering at the young.

We both know that you're talking crap just so you can get a rise out of
me.

Rowland.

-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Peter Ceresole  wrote:

> Jim  wrote:
> 
> > Oh, for Heaven's sake man, get some bloody perspective.
> 
> Jim, remember, Rowland doesn't have perspective. It's part of his mental
> illness.

Peter and Jim, remember, Peter has no humility or proper sense of the
limits of his own knowledge.  It's part of his mental illness.

Peter, you're a patronising git who's totally wrong in his conclusions
about me.

I'd thank you not to make personal comments about me here, mostly
because you're ignorant and so end up being annoyingly rude as well.

Rowland.

-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

T i m  wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:06:37 +0000, peterd.news@gmail.invalid (Pd)
> most certainly did not write:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > I wrote a bunch of
> >stuff with it, including a graphical SQL database browser to access our
> >butlers SQL server ... 
> 
> Are you sure that wouldn't come under the Data Protection Act?

Bad news quoting etiquette, dude.

-- 
Pd

In article
<1j8tjzb.17m5s0h1f2vsqoN%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet.invalid>,
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:

> But...  I might try wasting some more money, on the off chance - can you
> recommend a good book for learning how to program using XCode?

I don't really want to put you off if you're serious about this, but
here is my depressing experience of XCode.

Firstly, I'm a very experienced programmer.  I started by writing
hand-assembled machine code programs for a PDP-8i back in the 1970s,
and I have learned and used dozens of programming languages, and have
written for the Mac since 1986, mainly in Pascal.  I have produced
several large commercially-distributed scientific programs (Immunoassay
calculations, DNA and Protein sequence analysis etc.) and a popular
shareware music program, which I still support.

I can still write Carbon apps using C or Pascal and the Metrowerks
Codewarrior development system, but there's not much future left in
that, so I determined to learn XCode and Cocoa.  Following advice given
here, I bought a copy of Hillegass and downloaded and installed the
latest XCode.  I started with the  file BecomeAnXCoder.pdf, downloaded
from <http://www.cocoalab.com>.  This is very basic stuff -
introduction to programming in objective C and to the XCode
environment.  It includes two example programs, one being a
command-line "Hello World", and the other a simple Cocoa program which
puts up a dialog box with two buttons and a block of text which changes
when you click the buttons.  Hardly very taxing.

The problem was that neither program actually worked as advertised. 
The CL program compiled without error, but could not be run from within
XCode, for reasons which I could not determine.  At least if I exited
from XCode and ran it from Terminal it did work, so half a point to
XCode there.

The Cocoa program was a little wonder in its own way.  It too compiled
and ran without reported error, and was a complete little app, with
window, menus etc.  Even a working Services menu, which I have never
figured out how to do in Carbon.  All of this was made just by dragging
icons around, plus one single line of code, which I had copied and
pasted from the PDF.

But it didn't work.  Clicking on the buttons did not cause the text to
change.  I spent about four hours pulling it apart and putting it back
together again following the instructions in the PDF but nothing
helped.  How do you debug a program where all the interface source code
is hidden from you?

If I had written the same program in Carbon it would have taken about
300 lines of code (but 95% of that would have been simply copied and
pasted from previous programs, as it's all very standard).  It would
have worked first time, or if not I would have known how to fix it.

Eventually I gave up and went away with my tail between my legs. 
Hillegass remains unopened.  Maybe I'm just getting too old for this
stuff.

I shall continue to write Carbon apps until Apple takes away the
deprecated stuff which that relies upon, after which I shall build
guitars instead.  At least nobody can take those tools away from me.

Phil Taylor

In article <081120091151332428%nothere@all.invalid>,
 Phil Taylor <nothere@all.invalid> wrote:

> In article
> <1j8tjzb.17m5s0h1f2vsqoN%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet.invalid>,
> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > But...  I might try wasting some more money, on the off chance - can you
> > recommend a good book for learning how to program using XCode?
> 
> I don't really want to put you off if you're serious about this, but
> here is my depressing experience of XCode.
> 
> Firstly, I'm a very experienced programmer.  I started by writing
> hand-assembled machine code programs for a PDP-8i back in the 1970s,
> and I have learned and used dozens of programming languages, and have
> written for the Mac since 1986, mainly in Pascal.  I have produced
> several large commercially-distributed scientific programs (Immunoassay
> calculations, DNA and Protein sequence analysis etc.) and a popular
> shareware music program, which I still support.
> 
> I can still write Carbon apps using C or Pascal and the Metrowerks
> Codewarrior development system, but there's not much future left in
> that, so I determined to learn XCode and Cocoa.  Following advice given
> here, I bought a copy of Hillegass and downloaded and installed the
> latest XCode.  I started with the  file BecomeAnXCoder.pdf, downloaded
> from <http://www.cocoalab.com>.  This is very basic stuff -
> introduction to programming in objective C and to the XCode
> environment.  It includes two example programs, one being a
> command-line "Hello World", and the other a simple Cocoa program which
> puts up a dialog box with two buttons and a block of text which changes
> when you click the buttons.  Hardly very taxing.
> 
> The problem was that neither program actually worked as advertised. 
> The CL program compiled without error, but could not be run from within
> XCode, for reasons which I could not determine.  At least if I exited
> from XCode and ran it from Terminal it did work, so half a point to
> XCode there.
> 
> The Cocoa program was a little wonder in its own way.  It too compiled
> and ran without reported error, and was a complete little app, with
> window, menus etc.  Even a working Services menu, which I have never
> figured out how to do in Carbon.  All of this was made just by dragging
> icons around, plus one single line of code, which I had copied and
> pasted from the PDF.
> 
> But it didn't work.  Clicking on the buttons did not cause the text to
> change.  I spent about four hours pulling it apart and putting it back
> together again following the instructions in the PDF but nothing
> helped.  How do you debug a program where all the interface source code
> is hidden from you?

I've got around this by using JavaScript. My stuff uses JS to present to 
the user (using a Safari window), and it communicates with PHP scripts 
(using AJAX) which do the work of talking to the file system and remote 
hosts. Additionally the PHP uses SQLite for the database aspects.

There is also the advantage that I don't have to faff with C, C++, 
C++++. or whatever the latest flavour is. JS and PHP are syntactically 
fairly similar and I don't have to fart about worrying about word 
lengths or types. And the string handling is much better, too.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689